A less government conservative Republican from Livingston County, MI
Opinions on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Livingston County Republican Party.
Chairman of LCRP since January 2013

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Michigan's Ballot Proposals - 2012

One of the major things this election will be the ballot proposals. There's a large number of ballot proposals this election at the end of the ballot. That's important to remember. While I never pull the straight ticket lever and leave, many do. I'd like to see straight ticket voting banned, but that's another issue. It's important to go down the ballot and make a decision in each race and proposal (and that includes voting for blank if one wishes to do so - I've done that many times.)

If I was voting in September, I'd go as follows.

1. Leaning yes, may flip.
2. No chance in hell.
3. No chance in hell.
4. No chance in hell.
5. Hell Yes
6. Leaning no for constitutional amendment purposes, but may flip.

· Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

· Authorize
Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a
financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local
government officials.

· Require
EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include
modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government,
and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the
emergency is resolved.

· Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this law be approved?

I'm leaning towards a very reluctant yes. The only reason being that a no reverts back to the old EM law instead of what should happen to bad fiscally run municipalities. Bankruptcy Court. What I don't like about the EM policies is that it is in essence a bailout. The old law is more of a bailout than the current one. In both situations, the EM cleans up the mess of the democrats who screwed it up, and the voters put those same democrats back into office. Elections have consequences and voters who make bad decisions need to pay for it. If places like Pontiac, Hamtramck, and Highland Park keep voting for bums, then my view is TS. The state shouldn't bail them out. Maybe they should quit voting for those democrats over and over. I may yet vote no on this, and push for state cut offs instead. I haven't decided, yet.

Proposal 2 - Government unions.

PROPOSAL 12-2

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

· Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

· Invalidate
existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join
unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective
bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their
labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from
striking.

· Override
state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the
extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

· Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this proposal be approved?

This is bad news. It also applies almost STRICTLY to government unions like the SEIU and MEA which are the biggest problems. It also affects some public safety unions who have in statute binding arbitration. That's a law that affects your police and firemen, as they can't strike. Words mean things. What's really bad is the second part - "Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions." That covers everything. Why does this not cover a large number of private unions? That's because most of them are already regulated under federal law and the NLRB. The UAW, Teamsters, etc are already under federal jurisdiction with a lot of their contracts.

Prop 3 - Energy restrictions

PROPOSAL 12-3

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

· Require
electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales
of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar,
biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

· Limit
to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to
consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy
standard.

· Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

· Require
the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of
Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell No. We haven't even got to the 10% yet which was a previous goal. Green jobs are the fools gold of the 21st century, much as the service jobs revolution was in the 90's. This won't create jobs, but will cost jobs and raise costs of everything. Literally. The only green jobs are moneypits propped up by government subsidies. Those leaders of those companies also write big checks to politicians like Obama who give us Solyndra.

Prop 4 - SEIU in home care.

PROPOSAL 12-4

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL

AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

· Allow
in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality
Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive
representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with
labor laws.

· Require
MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry
of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to
patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

· Preserve
patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from
the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

· Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell no, again. I have a real problem with union dues taken from essentially independent contractors to be given to the SEIU's political buddies. If someone is getting in home care from especially familiy members, the state money should go to supporting the patient, not some SEIU goons who haven't done a damn thing to help.

Prop 5 - 2/3 for tax increases.

PROPOSAL 12-5

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

Require a 2/3
majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide
vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of
Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the
base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell yes. This stops the Blanchard taxes, Granholm taxes, and even the Snyder pension taxes from happening again. This proposal dynamic also show the difference between many on the establishment and the base. A lot of people who are elected officials and tied to elected officials quietly oppose this, largely due to their support of the Snyder pension tax. Others don't like losing the power. Some have mixed views and wanted this for Granholm, but not the currently administration.

As far as I'm concerned, bad is bad. A is A, as the late Mark Scott would say. We did not and do not have a revenue problem. The most important thing right now isn't stopping the increase in spending, but actually reducing spending. Until spending is reduced to a manageable level, I don't want to hear any revenue arguments. The MBT needed to go, but a replacement wasn't needed.

Prop 6 - The Bridge.

PROPOSAL 12-6

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

· Require
the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in
each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor
vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend
state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids
for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or
tunnels.

· Create
a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor
vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the
public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."

Should this proposal be approved?

I really wish this wasn't a constitutional amendment. I signed the petition to get it on the ballot because of turnout reasons. I don't support a tax money supported bridge. I also don't like items such as this to be on the constitution. That's what makes this tough.

At the very end of the ballot are the local proposals. Green Oak has a road millage on the ballot. The City of Brighton has a bond infrastructure proposal. Howell Township is trying yet again with the sewers. Brighton Schools has a millage renewal. Fenton and Byron schools also have tax measures.

2 comments:

Thank you for posting, this helps! One comment though, you are right on with 1-5, you are blatantly wrong about Proposal 6. No American tax dollars will go towards building this bridge. None. Nada. The risk falls 100% on the Canadian government. We get all of the benefits, none of the risks. Vote NO on proposal 6. Anything else is propaganda from that fool Matty Moroun.